list_parquet_files_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so credit goes to added context: snapshot-bound pagination semantics, the guarantee that filters are conjunctive across omitted partition levels, and that failures are not partial-coverage results. That is genuinely useful behavior not derivable from annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and front-loaded, which is good, but the compression costs clarity: 'errors are not partial coverage' is terse to the point of ambiguity, and the next_token/continuation_token mismatch is a structural defect rather than brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and pagination/consistency semantics are covered. What is missing is any meaning for the six filter parameters and the limit parameter, which is a significant gap for an eight-parameter listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the eight parameters, but it only speaks of 'filters' generically without ever naming year, month, product, project, inv_mode, freq_mode, or limit. Worse, it calls the pagination parameter 'next_token' while the schema declares 'continuation_token', creating a real risk of an agent passing the wrong key.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List published HTTPS Parquet URLs and provenance', which is concrete and distinguishes it from sibling readers like read_parquet_preview_tool. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it falls short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives real pagination guidance ('Follow next_token with identical filters; errors are not partial coverage') and clarifies that all filters apply even when earlier partition levels are omitted. However, it never says when to use this versus list_partition_values_tool or the read_parquet_* tools, and it references 'next_token' rather than the actual 'continuation_token' parameter, which weakens the instruction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.